> But I was specifically talking in that line about the Western pro-Palestinian movement, not Hamas.

Oh I see. I did misunderstand. But, honestly, I'm not so sure. Maybe you and I consume different news sources, but organizations and movements I once considered to be bastions of Western morality continue to distort the reality of the conflict so egregiously that I have a hard time understanding how it could be accidental. Continuing to report Hamas statistics without qualification and then using them to accuse Israel of "genocide" is unconscionable, for instance.

In 2021, the UN Human Rights Council published a resolution titled "Human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel," which accused Israel of widespread abuses without substantial mention of the barrage of rocket attacks from Hamas that provoked some of these responses. This selective reporting led readers to believe that Israel was the primary aggressor in the conflict.

In May 2021, during a conflict between Israel and Hamas, the BBC headlined, "Israel intensifies attacks in Gaza as conflict escalates," without equally highlighting the hundreds of rockets fired into civilian areas of Israel by Hamas. This portrayal skewed public perception, framing Israel as the initiator rather than acting in retaliation.

In April 2021, HRW released a report titled "A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution." This report categorically labeled Israel as an apartheid state, a term deeply contentious and debated, suggesting an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians.

In February 2022, Amnesty International issued a report stating that Israel's policies towards Palestinians amount to apartheid. The report asserts, "Israel’s cruel policies of segregation, dispossession, and exclusion across all territories under its control clearly amount to apartheid." This statement casts Israel's actions and policies in strictly negative terms, intensifying global anti-Israel sentiment without a balanced discussion of the complex security and political challenges that inform these policies.

Labeling Israel's policies as "apartheid" is both inappropriate and harmful because it inaccurately applies a term specifically defined under international law to the unique and complex Arab-Israeli conflict. Apartheid, as legally defined, refers to an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another. The situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories involves a national and territorial conflict, marked by security concerns and political disputes that differ fundamentally from the racial segregation and legal discrimination that characterized apartheid in South Africa.

Using the term "apartheid" to describe the Israeli-Palestinian context distorts understanding by simplifying a multifaceted conflict into a one-dimensional moral failing, which undermines the nuanced approach needed to resolve such disputes. It prevents meaningful dialogue, polarizes opinions, and can incite further tension by misrepresenting the nature of the conflict. This characterization shifts focus from seeking viable solutions to assigning blame, which is counterproductive for peace efforts and does a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians who are impacted by these complex issues.

While I'm sure that many leftists think "Free Palestine" means freedom, self-rule, sovereignty, I know that the movement depends on that ambiguity to dog whistle to racists who, unfortunately, infect some of our human rights watch dogs. So, no, I'm not convinced that Western pro-Palestinians are not on some level intentionally genocidal. I cannot otherwise explain the level of hate and vitriol directed at Israel way out of proportion to any other conflict or situation on the planet.